Bill C-39: Canada Cannot Build Its Future by Sacrificing Its Environment

Canada needs to build. But we cannot build a stronger future by weakening the laws that protect the land, water and wildlife that sustain us.

The federal government has introduced Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act, promising to accelerate major projects and get shovels in the ground faster.

But buried inside this massive bill are changes that could fundamentally alter how Canada assesses and regulates some of its largest and most environmentally consequential projects.

This is not simply about cutting red tape. It is about changing the rules that determine when, how and whether major industrial projects receive federal approval.

Earthroots is deeply concerned that Bill C-39 would put speed and economic development ahead of the careful, independent assessment needed to protect Canada’s environment.

Bill C-39 would establish a maximum one-year timeline for federal reviews and decisions once a proponent has submitted its comprehensive application and supporting information. The government describes this as a way to eliminate duplication and provide certainty for proponents. 

But environmental systems do not operate on political or corporate timelines.

A major mine, pipeline or port can affect watersheds, forests, wildlife populations, fish habitat, Indigenous rights and communities for decades or permanently.

Some impacts can only be understood through seasonal or long-term research. Some species are difficult to detect. Cumulative effects may only become apparent over time.

You cannot rush science without risking what the science will miss.

A one-year deadline may make an approval process faster. It does not make the environmental consequences of a project simpler.

Who is doing the assessing matters

Bill C-39 would shift responsibility for assessing some major projects from the Impact Assessment Agency to sector-specific regulators.

For pipelines and certain other energy projects, the Canada Energy Regulator would become the single authority responsible for assessment. For nuclear and uranium projects, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would take on the impact assessment role. 

These regulators have technical expertise and important responsibilities. But impact assessment is about more than regulating an industry.

It requires asking fundamental questions:

What will this project do to wildlife? What happens to habitat? What are the cumulative effects? What alternatives exist? What are the consequences for water, climate and communities? Can the damage actually be mitigated?

Those questions require independent scrutiny and a broad public-interest perspective.

A new pathway for development

Bill C-39 would also enable the creation of “Regions of National Interest” through regional impact assessments.

The concept may sound reasonable: identify areas of national importance and plan development strategically.

But pre-planning development in designated regions can fundamentally change the assessment process. Instead of examining every project from the starting point of whether it is appropriate for a particular landscape, decisions made at the regional level could facilitate multiple future projects.

Canada must not create places where industrial development becomes easier simply because an area has been designated a national priority.

If these regions are created, Canadians need clear environmental criteria, transparent decision-making, enforceable safeguards and meaningful opportunities for Indigenous and public participation.

Environmental conditions must not be weakened after approval

Bill C-39 would give ministers greater authority to add, remove or amend project conditions when they determine that doing so is in the public interest. It would also require decision-makers to consider the technical, economic and practical feasibility of conditions. 

Environmental conditions exist for a reason.

They are the safeguards negotiated and imposed because a project has been found to pose risks.

If those protections can later be weakened because they are considered too difficult, expensive or impractical, what happens to the environmental promises made when the project was approved?

The answer cannot be that environmental protection is binding until it becomes inconvenient.

Allowing work to begin before approval

Bill C-39 would allow the Environment Minister to authorize certain preparatory work before a final project decision where it is considered to be in the public interest. The government says such work would remain subject to conditions and would not guarantee approval. 

But environmental damage can be irreversible.

A road through intact habitat, clearing of forest, alteration of wetlands or disturbance of sensitive areas can change a landscape before the full project has even been approved.

If construction begins before the decision, the line between assessing a project and facilitating it becomes dangerously thin.

Wildlife protections cannot become a matter of convenience

Bill C-39 would amend the Species at Risk Act, requiring ministers to consider technical, economic and practical feasibility when establishing, adding or amending conditions attached to permits. 

For Canada’s most vulnerable species, this raises a fundamental concern.

Species at risk do not get a second chance when habitat is destroyed.

Canada’s wildlife laws were created because economic pressures can overwhelm conservation priorities unless the law establishes firm protections.

Environmental protection cannot depend on whether protecting a species happens to be convenient for a project.

Fish, water and public oversight are at stake

Bill C-39 also proposes changes affecting federal permitting and navigation, including the ability to streamline certain approvals within designated regions. The government’s stated objective is to reduce duplication and accelerate development. 

But every shortcut creates a question:

Once a wetland is destroyed, a fish habitat fragmented or an old-growth forest cleared, there is no regulatory process that can simply put it back.

Canada should build but build wisely

Earthroots is not opposed to building.

We support building the infrastructure Canada needs for a resilient future: renewable energy, electricity transmission, public transit, clean manufacturing and infrastructure that strengthens communities without sacrificing irreplaceable ecosystems.

The choice is not between protecting the environment and building Canada.

The real choice is whether we build intelligently or repeat the mistakes of the past and leave Canadians with polluted waters, damaged ecosystems, declining wildlife and environmental costs that future generations will have to pay.

Canada’s environmental laws are not obstacles to progress.

They are safeguards against making irreversible decisions we will later regret.

Bill C-39 risks weakening those safeguards at precisely the moment Canada should be strengthening them.

Tell your MP: Don’t fast-track environmental harm.

Bill C-39 is now before Parliament. Contact your Member of Parliament and tell them that Canada must build for the future without dismantling the environmental protections that future generations will depend on.